Proinsias wrote:I don't live where you live and things are obviously different. Maybe I'm being selfish but I'd rather have the choice to buy cannabis from a fairtrade, organic source which was taxed than from a dubious illegal source. They may not stop the illegal market but I get the feeling there's far more money changing hands over legal alcohol than illegal alcohol in the UK.

So you're effectively saying that you'd rather give your money to government than Joe Dealer? What about the established correlation between frequent cannabis use and disorders such as depression and anxiety, leaving aside higher psychotic disorders? What about the burden on the NHS, which faces increasing costs due to the interventions for anxiety and depression? Wouldn't you rather seek to discourage the use of any substance which induces or exacerbates either condition?

Proinsias wrote:I'd wager there is some sort of correlation between cannabis being legal and the level of cannabis related psychotic episodes. I'm not sure which way it would swing but to state that there is no correlation seems like a leap to me. Do you have an data for countries in which cannabis is legal and ones which it is not which show that psychotic episodes due to cannabis are the same?

I said: What if any correlation is there between legalising cannabis and reducing the levels of usage among cannabis users thus begging the question how would legalising cannabis reduce the level of (the ones we know of) psychosis-related illnesses and consequential family breakdowns?

I didn't make the statement you seem to think I did. I asked you to show me any correlation between legalisation and a drop in usage levels. The invitation is still open. Let me give you a quote, though:

"Downgrading a drug does not necessarily lead to a reduction in its use, no more than it necessarily leads to an increase; any increase in the use of any drug is proportionate to supply and demand, availability, and price, as evidenced by the increasing use of cocaine; messages that downgrading, or legalising cannabis lead to reduced use simply do not stand up to scrutiny, however that does seem to be the message of those who have an agenda to legalise all drugs are seeking to send out; legalising drugs will decriminalise them, it may or may not lead to an increase or a decrease in consumption; messages to the contrary are spurious."

Proinsias wrote:Is it? They sponsor nicotine which has been shown to be lethal, one of the few arguments cannabis has going for it is that it is not lethal , lazy and pychotic maybe but I've not seen anything which claims it is lethal.

Of course it is. Unless you think that a drug which causes a wide range of mental disorders, destroys whole families and the very fabric of society is not a lethal drug?? Cannabis has nothing "going for it".

"Cannabis smokers have a heightened risk of lung infection. Long term users may increase the risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, emphysema, together with cancer of the head neck and lungs. That smoking three or four joints is as bad for our lungs as smoking 20 cigarettes. Smoke from cannabis contains 50-70 per cent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than ordinary tobacco smoke:

In view of the above, and the strong messages that we have been receiving for some years about the dangers of smoking, together with the concerted efforts to introduce a virtual ban on smoking, why on earth did Mr. Blunkett, see fit to send out a message that cannabis is relatively harmless? Taken to its logical conclusion, or in this case illogical conclusion, we may not be permitted to light up an ordinary cigarette in public, but it's OK to light up a 'joint'.

Perhaps Mr. Blunkett took the advice on the UKCIA web site:

'Cannabis is remarkably safe for most people-if it's treated with respect, it's unlikely to cause problems to health or well-being, there's no toxic overdose potential with cannabis so unlike almost every other substance you can't die from its drug effect by taking too much of It'.

Unless the warnings on cigarette packets, such as 'Smoking Kills', are untrue, that statement would have to be regarded as disingenuous. Further, with Charles Clarke now suggesting that quantities for 'personal use' could be increased to sufficient to roll 500 'spliffs', then assuming an average consumption of 10 a day, we have people smoking the equivalent of 50 cigarettes a day for seven weeks, which, if we listen to UKCIA and one or two other like minded groups is 'remarkably safe'. On the other hand the more likely scenario is stoned, possibly psychotic, users suffering from anxiety, depression and chronic pulmonary congestion."

There is literally NO argument in favour of legalising cannabis. The fallacious argument of alcohol and tobacco already being legal is one of the most pathetic, logic-lite arguments to have ever surfaced in this debate.

The argument that cannabis is 'relatively harmless' is also an argument with not a shred of evidence to support it.

There is NO correlation between the legalising of cannabis and a reduction in cannabis use.

There is NO evidence to suggest the legalising of cannabis will put even a significant dent in the illegal selling of the drug.

In the end, the argument to legalise cannabis is one of the most ill-thought out arguments in the history of drugs debates. It is an argument pushed by those with an agenda or those with a shocking grasp of the actual harms which frequent cannabis smoking can cause; either this or they literally do not care.

Proinsias wrote:I don't live where you live and things are obviously different. Maybe I'm being selfish but I'd rather have the choice to buy cannabis from a fairtrade, organic source which was taxed than from a dubious illegal source. They may not stop the illegal market but I get the feeling there's far more money changing hands over legal alcohol than illegal alcohol in the UK.

So you're effectively saying that you'd rather give your money to government than Joe Dealer? What about the established correlation between frequent cannabis use and disorders such as depression and anxiety, leaving aside higher psychotic disorders? What about the burden on the NHS, which faces increasing costs due to the interventions for anxiety and depression? Wouldn't you rather seek to discourage the use of any substance which induces or exacerbates either condition?

Yes, I'd rather give money to the government than to Joe Dealer. Alcohol and tobacco wreak at least as much havoc as weed does. If people are buying it and it's into the billions would you prefer the money went up the chain from Joe Dealer or up the chain to the goverment?"Downgrading a drug does not necessarily lead to a reduction in its use, no more than it necessarily leads to an increase; any increase in the use of any drug is proportionate to supply and demand, availability, and price, as evidenced by the increasing use of cocaine; messages that downgrading, or legalising cannabis lead to reduced use simply do not stand up to scrutiny, however that does seem to be the message of those who have an agenda to legalise all drugs are seeking to send out; legalising drugs will decriminalise them, it may or may not lead to an increase or a decrease in consumption; messages to the contrary are spurious."

Following that. Legalsiing weed has not been shown to reduce or increase any of the issues associated with weed. So why insist that people who use it give their money to Joe Dealer? As it's legalisation doesn't make much difference to the stats we should leave that source of revenue to criminals?

Of course it is. Unless you think that a drug which causes a wide range of mental disorders, destroys whole families and the very fabric of society is not a lethal drug?? Cannabis has nothing "going for it".

A drug that causes a wide range of mental disorders, destroys whole families and the very fabric of society is not leathal. It's a drug which causes mental disorders, destroys whole families and the very fabric of society.

There is literally NO argument in favour of legalising cannabis. The fallacious argument of alcohol and tobacco already being legal is one of the most pathetic, logic-lite arguments to have ever surfaced in this debate.

Alcohol and tobacco are legal, weed is not. It's not fallicous to argue that alcohol and tobacco are legal and that weed is no worse than either of them. You may not agree. Alcohol rips families apart as does nicotine, the govenment make a fortune from them. They make nothing from cannabis, they deal with, and pay for, the consequences

I don't want to breath in all that weed smoke, thank you very much. Here in California, I'm not forced to smoke second hand a lot of cigarette smoke. It would be much worse if I had to breath in smoke from weed. Someone drinking does not cause me to partake second hand in his drug of choice. Smoke can cause lung cancer too, which obviously isn't a problem with drinking.

"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

Proinsias wrote:Yes, I'd rather give money to the government than to Joe Dealer. Alcohol and tobacco wreak at least as much havoc as weed does. If people are buying it and it's into the billions would you prefer the money went up the chain from Joe Dealer or up the chain to the goverment?

I'd rather government keep their greedy little mittens out of it. Awareness and prevention are the keys. Let the public and private sectors do their job in prevention and rehabilitation without the catastrophic consequences which legalisation would bring. And again, what is it that leads you to believe Joe Dealer will somehow lose his income just because government decide to get in on the action?

Proinsias wrote:"Downgrading a drug does not necessarily lead to a reduction in its use, no more than it necessarily leads to an increase; any increase in the use of any drug is proportionate to supply and demand, availability, and price, as evidenced by the increasing use of cocaine; messages that downgrading, or legalising cannabis lead to reduced use simply do not stand up to scrutiny, however that does seem to be the message of those who have an agenda to legalise all drugs are seeking to send out; legalising drugs will decriminalise them, it may or may not lead to an increase or a decrease in consumption; messages to the contrary are spurious."

Following that. Legalsiing weed has not been shown to reduce or increase any of the issues associated with weed. So why insist that people who use it give their money to Joe Dealer? As it's legalisation doesn't make much difference to the stats we should leave that source of revenue to criminals?

No. We continue with the education and rehabilitation programmes. Legalising cannabis makes a mockery of all this work.

Of course it is. Unless you think that a drug which causes a wide range of mental disorders, destroys whole families and the very fabric of society is not a lethal drug?? Cannabis has nothing "going for it".

Proinsias wrote:A drug that causes a wide range of mental disorders, destroys whole families and the very fabric of society is not leathal. It's a drug which causes mental disorders, destroys whole families and the very fabric of society.

Would you consider schizophrenia to be potentially lethal and has schizophrenia lead to lethal consequences? Those who start smoking cannabis by the age of 15 are more than three times more likely to develop schizophrenia. Cannabis use increases the risk of psychosis by up to 700% for heavy users. Research by psychiatrists in inner-city areas shows cannabis being a factor in up to 80% of schizophrenia cases. Would you not consider this to be a potentially lethal drug? If you dismiss the "potentially" then I'm afraid you are shutting your eyes to the real dangers here. How do you feel about the remarkable number of young adults who develop psychosis-related illnesses due to frequent cannabis use? Why is your mind not focused on discouraging all of this?

There is literally NO argument in favour of legalising cannabis. The fallacious argument of alcohol and tobacco already being legal is one of the most pathetic, logic-lite arguments to have ever surfaced in this debate.

Proinsias wrote:Alcohol and tobacco are legal, weed is not. It's not fallicous to argue that alcohol and tobacco are legal and that weed is no worse than either of them. You may not agree. Alcohol rips families apart as does nicotine, the govenment make a fortune from them. They make nothing from cannabis, they deal with, and pay for, the consequences

Alcohol and tobacco would be illegal if introduced today. We are so far down the line with both, and it is a fallacy to argue for the legalisation of cannabis from this standpoint. Just because we permit the use of alcohol and tobacco does not mean we should allow yet another lethal substance onto the market; this logically does not follow. Or, can you explain the logic in your thinking here?

In case you missed this part,

"Cannabis smokers have a heightened risk of lung infection. Long term users may increase the risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, emphysema, together with cancer of the head neck and lungs. That smoking three or four joints is as bad for our lungs as smoking 20 cigarettes. Smoke from cannabis contains 50-70 per cent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than ordinary tobacco smoke"

Your sole aim appears to be for government to make some money out of this; I find this utterly remarkable. I know not one person who would trust government with their piggy bank, yet you are advocating government earn from cannabis. And again: can you show me how government making money would stop Joe Dealer making his money?

I'd rather have the government dealing with it, but I suppose that comes down to preference. What leads me to believe that Joe Dealer will lose income is that that is what happened with alcohol in the US to my knowledge. As I said earlier it was far easier for me to get a hold of illegal drugs in my early teens than legal teens, I accept this is purely anecdotal though.

I don't consider cannabis a lethal. Yes it has the potential to lead to psychiatric which in some cases have the potential to be lethal. But this isn't what is meant by lethal drug in any context I'm aware of.

I don't feel good about young adults developing mental health issue due to overuse of cannabis but I don't think ensuring the cannabis trade remains entirely in the realm of drug dealers is going to help this.

Alcohol and tobacco may be made illegal if they were introduced today, but this is not the case. And if we didn't have alcohol or tobacco society would be using something else, cannabis perhaps.

My sole aim is not to have the government make some money from this. Won't somebody think of the children? yes. But not to the point that I couldn't meet you for a pint or a joint one day as we would both end up wrecking our families. There is a nanny state part of it for me - if a minority cannot enjoying something responsibly then no-one can.

Hello Pro, sorry for the delay. It's hot and beautiful and I'm working harder; I think we call this 'Sod's law'... Oh how I wish I was a teacher at this time of year...

Proinsias wrote:As I said earlier it was far easier for me to get a hold of illegal drugs in my early teens than legal teens, I accept this is purely anecdotal though.

Well I think we can agree that anyone under the 'set age' that legalisation would bring will remain just as vulnerable as 'before.' Incidentally, at what age do you think government should set the bar?

Proinsias wrote:I don't consider cannabis a lethal. Yes it has the potential to lead to psychiatric which in some cases have the potential to be lethal. But this isn't what is meant by lethal drug in any context I'm aware of.

All psychosis-related illnesses have the potential to be lethal. Tobacco and alcohol have the potential to be lethal, just as cannabis has the potential to be lethal - all three can kill you; the point is that cannabis also has the potential to inflict serious psychosis upon the user and the potential consequences are dire. This is true. Therefore any society that legalises such a drug is morally bankrupt, bereft of any last ounce of authority, with no right to pronounce and impose upon a population it exposes to a legalised pathway to schizophrenia. Any government that does this has no moral authority or right to tell me anything ever again.

Proinsias wrote:I don't feel good about young adults developing mental health issue due to overuse of cannabis but I don't think ensuring the cannabis trade remains entirely in the realm of drug dealers is going to help this.

I think the only thing to do is to carry on with awareness, prevention and rehabilitation programmes: teaching against the use of cannabis. Tougher sentencing for possession of a 1 ounce upwards and for growers - I know of a case where a man who had 500 plants of Skunk growing in his house got sentenced to ... wait for it ... 50 hours community service. This is an example of the complete and utter state this country has got itself into. Tougher sentencing deters many; not all, but many.

Proinsias wrote:Alcohol and tobacco may be made illegal if they were introduced today, but this is not the case. And if we didn't have alcohol or tobacco society would be using something else, cannabis perhaps.

Pro, this is still a non argument.

Proinsias wrote:My sole aim is not to have the government make some money from this. Won't somebody think of the children? yes. But not to the point that I couldn't meet you for a pint or a joint one day as we would both end up wrecking our families. There is a nanny state part of it for me - if a minority cannot enjoying something responsibly then no-one can.

The nanny state is a state that tells you not to use your water hose; a nanny state says you cannot take pictures of your young children at school sports day because paeodophiles exist; a nanny state says you cannot sing the nursery rhyme bar bar black sheep because it might prick the sensibilities of the black man and woman.

Young people need to be told about the dangers of smoking cannabis. Any state which does not do this and says it's OK to smoke puff is guilty of neglect; it has become a bad parent. If a child's mother does not warn her child of the dangers of cannabis and against smoking it then she is immediately guity of neglect and should have no right to raise that child. If government does this then it has no moral right to tell the child anything and the child must be taken out of the 'care' of that government because that government is a danger to the child's health and well being.

Last edited by DannyM on Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

DannyM wrote:
The nanny state is a state that tells you not to use your water hose; a nanny state says you cannot take pictures of your young children at school sports day because paeodophiles exist; a nanny state says you cannot sing the nursery rhyme bar bar black sheep because it might prick the sensibilities of the black man and woman.

Young people need to be told about the dangers of smoking cannabis. Any state which does not do this and says it's OK to smoke puff is guilty of neglect; it has become a bad parent. If a child's mother does not warn her child of the dangers of cannabis and against smoking it then she is immediately guity of neglect and should have no right to raise that child. If government does this then it has no moral right to tell the child anything and the child must be taken out of the 'care' of that government because that government is a danger to the child's health and well being.

Right you are! Well said brother!

Once I was trapped in a perpetual night, without even a star to light the sky. Now I stand in the glory of the Son, and not even a faint shadow of darkness remains.

Of course after blowing your mind it does happen to leave your mental faculties not entirely in tact, which is why if you go to Holland and you LEGALLY have the choice to smoke a spliff...DON'T BE A CHILD AND ACTUALLY DO IT. (like I did, BIG mistake.)

Would you call sweden a "nanny" state? We don't really treat political correctness like a big thing around here. England and US are nanny states right?

cslewislover wrote:I don't want to breath in all that weed smoke, thank you very much. Here in California, I'm not forced to smoke second hand a lot of cigarette smoke. It would be much worse if I had to breath in smoke from weed. Someone drinking does not cause me to partake second hand in his drug of choice. Smoke can cause lung cancer too, which obviously isn't a problem with drinking.

Weed smoke is NOWHERE close to tobacco smoke in terms of danger, there are/have been 0 deaths from marijuana lung cancer ,illness or death in america. It is not a gateway drug, it is not refined or synthesized. It is purely a propaganda campaign to criminalize the plant, if it so damaging there would not be medications with synthetic forms or THC(marinol).http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html
The first line on this page is a lie. It has existed and the idea was taken from a plant, if people could grow there own medicine how could it be profitable?

The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care."

cslewislover wrote:I don't want to breath in all that weed smoke, thank you very much. Here in California, I'm not forced to smoke second hand a lot of cigarette smoke. It would be much worse if I had to breath in smoke from weed. Someone drinking does not cause me to partake second hand in his drug of choice. Smoke can cause lung cancer too, which obviously isn't a problem with drinking.

Weed smoke is NOWHERE close to tobacco smoke in terms of danger, there are/have been 0 deaths from marijuana lung cancer ,illness or death in america. It is not a gateway drug, it is not refined or synthesized. It is purely a propaganda campaign to criminalize the plant, if it so damaging there would not be medications with synthetic forms or THC(marinol).http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html
The first line on this page is a lie. It has existed and the idea was taken from a plant, if people could grow there own medicine how could it be profitable?

Whatever the pros and cons, I still would not want to breathe in or smell Marijuana smoke. It wouldn't be right to force on others your habit. And, I find it really hard to believe what you said about the lung cancer. It makes no sense, so I think it just hasn't been studied enough. Putting foreign stuff in your lungs is going to irritate the tissue, period. I can imagine that most people would not be up for telling the truth when they're using a controlled substance, although I don't know how that would affect studies in some other countries. What are you talking about really, with the lie situation?

"I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis

Josh wrote:The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care."

cslewislover wrote:I don't want to breath in all that weed smoke, thank you very much. Here in California, I'm not forced to smoke second hand a lot of cigarette smoke. It would be much worse if I had to breath in smoke from weed. Someone drinking does not cause me to partake second hand in his drug of choice. Smoke can cause lung cancer too, which obviously isn't a problem with drinking.

Weed smoke is NOWHERE close to tobacco smoke in terms of danger, there are/have been 0 deaths from marijuana lung cancer ,illness or death in america. It is not a gateway drug, it is not refined or synthesized. It is purely a propaganda campaign to criminalize the plant, if it so damaging there would not be medications with synthetic forms or THC(marinol).http://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html
The first line on this page is a lie. It has existed and the idea was taken from a plant, if people could grow there own medicine how could it be profitable?

Does your weed spliff contain tobacco? Or is it purely weed?

Let's talk about it being a gateway drug. I've done everything from sniff glue to booting heroin. I'm not convinced that cannabis is necessarily a gateway drug, but the evidence goes against my instinct. So please back up your bold assertion that it is not a gateway drug. Show me some hitherto unseen evidence and I will back you up, otherwise please abandon the silly talk.